Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-02-1693)
Facts:
In the case of Oscar M. Poso vs. Judge Jose H. Mijares and Flor Serio, the complaint arose from administrative proceedings related to a murder case (Crim. Case No. 2477) against Virgilio de Guia, which was presided over by Judge Mijares at the Regional Trial Court Branch 21 in Laoang, Northern Samar. The murder case was raffled to this court on February 6, 1995, where Judge Mijares was serving in an acting capacity. The arraignment of the accused occurred on October 16, 1995, where he pleaded not guilty. However, during a pre-trial conference on November 27, 1995, the accused changed his plea to guilty for the lesser charge of homicide, with the prosecution and the private complainant, Oscar Poso, consenting to this change.
Despite the plea, Judge Mijares hastily pronounced the accused guilty of homicide on the same day, allowing three mitigating circumstances in sentencing, leading to a sentence of four years and two months to eight years and one day of prision mayor. Controve
Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-02-1693)
Facts:
- Background on Respondent Judge Mijares
- Previously admonished and fined for dismissing a petition for mandamus based on a compromise agreement and exhibiting negligence.
- Warned in the administrative case of Dadap-Malinao v. Mijares for gross ignorance of the law; cautioned that further similar infractions would incur more severe penalties.
- Proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2477 (People v. Virgilio de Guia)
- The criminal case was raffled to RTC-Br. 21, Laoang, Northern Samar, with Judge Mijares presiding in an acting capacity.
- On February 6, 1995, the case was assigned; on October 16, 1995, the accused was arraigned and pleaded not guilty.
- The proceedings were reset and on November 27, 1995, during the pre-trial conference, the accused withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to homicide with the consent of both the handling public prosecutor and the private offended parties.
- Issuance of Erroneous Judgments and Resolutions
- Judge Mijares promulgated a sentence on November 27, 1995, finding the accused guilty of homicide and allowing three mitigating circumstances (plea of guilty, voluntary surrender, intoxication).
- He imposed an indeterminate sentence ranging from a minimum of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional to a maximum of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor and ordered indemnity payment to the victim’s heirs.
- The motion for reconsideration for reducing the penalty was controversially handled by issuing two conflicting versions of the Resolution dated January 10, 1996:
- One version (Exh. aD) maintained the originally reduced penalty range as pleaded by the accused.
- The other version (Exh. a6) altered both the minimum and maximum penalties improperly by assigning prision correccional terms exclusively.
- Judge Mijares admitted that one copy was merely a draft; nevertheless, the circulation of the draft compromised the integrity of the decision-making process.
- Procedural Irregularities in the Handling of the Motion for Reconsideration and Probation
- There was contention as to whether the motion for reconsideration was genuine—complainant alleged it was unsigned and never filed, while the judge’s records showed proper filing and notice.
- The conflicting versions of the Resolution created confusion regarding the authentic penalty imposed, directly affecting the eligibility of the accused for probation.
- On January 11, 1996, Judge Mijares ordered the provisional discharge of the accused from detention on the recognizance of the OIC Clerk Flor Serio without proper hearing of the prosecution or the offended private parties.
- The subsequent order on January 12, 1996, directing the Probation Officer to conduct the necessary case study further highlighted the sequence of irregularities in managing the application for probation.
- Allegations and Charges Raised by Complainant Oscar M. Poso
- Alleged that Judge Mijares:
- Wrongfully convicted the accused of homicide when the original charge was murder.
- Acted on an unsigned motion for reconsideration without notifying the prosecution.
- Illegally issued conflicting resolutions, thereby manipulating the penalty imposed to facilitate probation.
- Released the accused from detention without affording due process to the prosecution and the private complainants.
- In addition, the complainant charged Flor Serio with conspiracy and concealment of documents for allegedly refusing to furnish certified copies of key documents related to the case.
- The charges invoked violations under Sec. 3, pars. (e) and (f) of RA 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
- Investigation and Subsequent Proceedings
- The Office of the Ombudsman referred the complaint to the Court.
- An exhaustive investigation was conducted by Justice Edgardo P. Cruz of the Court of Appeals, which included several pre-trial conferences and multiple hearings.
- Justice Cruz’s Report and Recommendation highlighted:
- Erroneous reduction of the penalty contrary to the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
- Unauthorized release of the accused on recognizance before proper notice was given.
- Clear evidence of judicial mismanagement and negligence.
- While Justice Cruz recommended a four (4) month suspension with a stern warning, the Court found the offense grave enough to warrant harsher sanctions.
- Final Determination on the Controversial Administrative Case
- The Court determined that Judge Mijares’ actions compromised the judicial process, violated the duty of confidentiality, and disrupted the fundamental principles of due process and justice.
- His conduct was deemed to describe gross ignorance of the law, manifest partiality, and a deliberate abuse of judicial discretion.
- The inappropriate actions directly led to a void judgment in Crim. Case No. 2477, necessitating remedial measures to restore the integrity of the judicial process.
Issues:
- Whether Judge Mijares' issuance of conflicting resolutions, including a circulating draft, constitutes gross ignorance of the law and a violation of judicial ethics.
- The proper authentication and management of judicial documents were questioned.
- The legal sufficiency of issuing an unsigned motion for reconsideration and subsequently relying on it.
- Whether the reduction of the penalty and the subsequent granting of probation violated the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the Probation Law.
- The discrepancy between the penalties reflected in the draft and final resolutions.
- The alleged unauthorized lowering of the penalty to qualify the accused for probation.
- Whether the waiver of due process by releasing the accused from detention without affording a hearing to the prosecution and private parties amounts to an abuse of judicial discretion.
- The failure to provide notice and the absence of a hearing in the provisional discharge of the accused.
- The impact of the premature release on the rights of the prosecution and the victim’s relatives.
- Whether the actions of Judge Mijares, including the handling of the motion for reconsideration and the probation proceedings, are sufficient to impose severe administrative sanctions, including dismissal from office.
- The implications of his conduct for judicial integrity.
- The relevance of his previous disciplinary record in evaluating the current offense.
- Whether the alleged improper conduct by OIC Clerk Flor Serio, regarding document custody and issuance, contributes to the overall wrongdoing or should be dismissed given the evidence.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)